TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (2) TMI 1472
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y to the facts and also the law applicable to the facts of the case. 3. The Learned CIT(A) is not justified in confirming the penalty of Rs. 2,66,77,674/- levied by the Assessing Officer. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that the penalty notice issued by the Assessing Officer is invalid without specifying the clause/limb under which penalty can be levied U/s 270A, consequently the levy of penalty is against the law. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that admission during the course of search proceedings does not lead to under-reporting in consequence to misreporting of income. 6. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that the assessing officer is not justified in levying the penalty as there is no difference between the returned income and assessed income. 7. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that levy of penalty is not applicable when the income is determined by way of estimation with respect to income towards spent solvents and scrap. 8. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that Assessing Officer is erred in computation of penalty on entire purchas....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of income on 2/11/2021 declaring total income of Rs.67,30,91,940/-. In the return filed under section 153A of the Act, the assessee had admitted the following additional income: SI.No PARTICULARS Income admitted during the search proceedings (Rs.) Income admitted as per ROI filed in response to the notice u/s 153A (Rs.) 1 Unaccounted receipts from sale of spent solvents and scrap 6,77,03,448 6,77,03,448 2 Expenses incurred in cash and booked under the head Travelling & Conveyance 1,63,375 1,63,375 3 Expenses incurred in cash and booked under the head "Foreign Travel Expenses" 31,17,395 20,94,297 4 Inflation of purchase of raw material 68,31,920 68,31,920 5 Expenses incurred in cash and booked under the head other expenses 23,71,675 23,71,675 8,01,87,813 7,91,64,715 5. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and during the course of assessment proceedings, the A.O on the basis of incriminating material found during the course of search coupled with the admission of additional income in the return of income filed under section 153A of the Act, has assessed the additional i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of section 270A of the Act. 7. The A.O after considering the submission of the assessee and also taking note of the income assessed towards the additional income admitted for sale of spent solvent and scraps and also additional income offered towards disallowance of unsubstantiated purchase and other expenses, observed that the disclosure made by the assessee was based on the unaccounted sale of spent solvent and scraps. Further, the additional income offered towards unsubstantiated purchase of raw materials and expenses is not for the purpose of business. The sale of spent solvent and scrap did not form part of regular books of account and were not disclosed to the I.T. Department. Since the assessee has disclosed the additional income in consequent to search on the basis of incriminating material found which is not recorded in the books of account and further the additional income has been offered for unsubstantiated expenditure, the provisions of section 270A of the Act are squarely applicable for misreporting of income. During the course of penalty proceedings, the assessee has not provided proper explanation with regard to the default committed within the meaning of sectio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....echanically initiated is without substance. The relevant findings of the Ld. CIT (A) are as under: 6. Decision : 6.0 I have carefully considered the penalty order passed u/s 270A, the assessment order u/s 153A, the appellant's written submissions. The grounds are adjudicated as under: 6.1 Ground Nos. 1 & 11 are general in nature without pointing out any specific legal infirmity and hence do not require separate adjudication. Dismissed. 6.2 In Ground Nos. 2 to 5, the appellant challenged the penalty of Rs. 2,66,77,674/- levied u/s 270A of the I.T.Act stating that (i) The notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 270A does not specify the precise limb, (ii) There is no clear basis for treating the case as "under-reporting in consequence of misreporting", and (iii) Most items were already offered in the return u/s 153A and the solvent issue finally concluded on estimation at 40% of gross receipts as per the decision of Hon'ble ITAT. 6.2.1 The brief facts of the case are that a search u/s.132 of the I.T.Act was carried out in M/s MSN Group of cases on 24.02.2021. M/s MSN Laboratories Pvt Ltd is one of the companies covered u/s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... u/s.270A(9) of the I.T.Act. Against the said order, the appellant is in present appeal. 6.2.3 During the course of appellate proceedings, the appellant contended that the penalty levied under section 270A was unjustified both on facts and in law. It was argued that the Assessing Officer had accepted the return of income filed under section 153A wherein the appellant had already disclosed all the incomes admitted during the search proceedings, except for the issue relating to sale of spent solvents and scrap, which was further examined and settled by the Hon'ble ITAT. The appellant submitted that the penalty notice issued under section 274 read with section 270A was defective in law, as the Assessing Officer had failed to specify the precise "limb" or clause of section 270A(9) which was allegedly attracted in the appellant's case. It was contended that except for the alleged unsubstantiated purchases, the other disallowances relating to expenses booked under travelling and conveyance -Rs. 1,63,375, foreign travel -Rs. 20,94,297, and other cash expenses -Rs. 23,71,675, do not constitute "misreporting" within the meaning of section 270A(9). These disallowances were v....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....red the submission of the appellant on the issue wise addition and levy of penalty thereon. It is now important to go through the provisions of section Sub-section (9) of section 270A of the Act reads as under: "270A. Penalty for under-reporting and misreporting of income .- (9) The cases of misreporting of income referred to in sub-section (8) shall be the following, namely :- (a) misrepresentation or suppression of facts; (b) failure to record investments in the books of account; (c) claim of expenditure not substantiated by any evidence; (d) recording of any false entry in the books of account; (e) failure to record any receipt in books of account having a bearing on total income; and (f) failure to report any international transaction or any transaction deemedto be an international transaction or any specified domestic transaction, to which the provisions of Chapter X apply." 6.2.8 The AO has specifically recorded that while computing the income of the assessee and its return of income, it was not just under-reported the income, but also misrepresented the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rsion that all receipts and expenses were "voluntarily" offered after the search, or that they were purely estimation-based, defies common sense and fails the test of human probability. Such explanations are merely afterthoughts and do not rebut the clear evidence of intentional concealment revealed by the seized data. 6.2.12 The Hon'ble Delhi Tribunal in Dy. CIT v. Pawan Kumar Malhotra (2 ITR (Trib) 250) has also held that where the Assessing Officer arrives at a conclusion based on meticulous inquiry that the transactions were sham, the difference has to be treated as undisclosed income, and penalty would be justified. The same rationale applies here, as the Assessing Officer has arrived at his conclusion only after detailed verification of the seized records and post- search statements. Further, in Friends Trading Company v. Union of India (Civil Appeal No. 5608/2011), the Hon'ble Supreme Court reaffirmed the principle that fraud vitiates everything and that benefits obtained by deceit or by producing forged or false records are void ab initio. The conduct of the present appellant in concealing unaccounted sales, fabricating inflated purchase claims, and showing....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to under reporting. In my view by suppressing its income on account of various head of additions i.e. (i) Spent solvents/scrap which is reduced on account of ITAT decision- Rs.2,70,81,379/-, (ii)Unsubstantiated purchases - Rs.68,31,920/-, (iii) Conveyance/travel and foreign travel -cash exp-Rs.20,94,297/-, (iv) Other expenses in cash- Rs.25,35,050/-, aggregating to Rs. 3,85,42,646/-, which the appellant has mis- reported its taxable income. These actions of the assessee would fall under clauses (a) and (c) of sec 270A(9). I therefore uphold the levy of penalty of Rs.2,66,77,675/- u/s 270A(9) of the I.T.Act. 6.3 In Ground No. 6, the appellant has contended that the Assessing Officer did not record proper satisfaction in the assessment order before initiating penalty proceedings under section 270A of the Income Tax Act. 6.3.1 The appellant submitted that the Assessing Officer merely stated in the assessment order that "penalty proceedings are initiated separately on each issue of disclosure," which according to the appellant is a general and mechanical remark and does not satisfy the statutory mandate of recording satisfaction. It was further argued that it is well ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t penalty, if at all leviable, should be restricted only to the profit component of unsubstantiated purchases, and (iv) that disallowances under sections 40A(3) and 37(1) being inherently penal, cannot form part of misreporting. 6.4.1 I have considered the submissions of the appellant. The plea that there was no variation between returned and assessed income is factually incorrect. The disclosure made in the return filed under section 153A was not voluntary but came only after the search operation and seizure of incriminating evidence. Such post-search admission does not cure the earlier concealment in the original return filed under section 139(1). Hence, the argument that penalty cannot be imposed because the 153A return was accepted is without merit. 6.4.2 Regarding the addition relating to unaccounted sale of spent solvents and scrap, it is not in dispute that these receipts were never recorded in the regular books of account. The seized digital evidence from the pen drive, coupled with the statement of the cashier and the Managing Director, clearly establish that such transactions were kept outside the books and represented real business receipts. Even though....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rror or omission and attracts penalty at 50%, misreporting arises from deliberate falsification and suppression, attracting a higher penalty of 200%. The facts of this case firmly place the appellant within the latter category. The explanations offered are neither credible nor supported by any material evidence. The disclosures made post- search cannot be termed voluntary, as they were a direct consequence of detection. 6.4.7 Therefore, based on the cumulative analysis of the seized evidence, statements recorded, and the judicial principles discussed earlier, I find that the levy of penalty at 200% of the tax on misreported income of Rs. 3,85,42,646/- is fully justified. The Assessing Officer has applied the correct provisions of law, and there is no error in computation or in identifying the nature of the default. Accordingly, Ground Nos. 7, 8, 9, and 10 are dismissed and the penalty levied under section 270A(9) of the Income Tax Act is hereby confirmed in full. 10. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT (A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 11. The learned Counsel for the assessee, Shri. M.V. Prasad, CA, referring to Ground No.4 of the assessee's appea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ther it is for under reporting of income or misreporting of income and in case it is for misreporting, then he must specify the sub clause provided thereon. Since the show cause notice issued by the A.O is vague without application of mind, the entire proceedings become vitiate and consequently, the penalty levied by the A.O cannot be upheld. In this regard, he relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. SSA's Emerald Meadows (2016) 73 Taxman.com 248 (SC) wherein the SLP filed against the judgement of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the said case was dismissed. The said judgement of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court was rendered by following the earlier judgment of the same Court in the case of CIT vs. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (2013) 35 taxmann.com 250 (Kar.). The assessee also relied on the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Prem Brothers Infrastructure LLP vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre (2022) 142 taxmann.com 38 and the decision in the case of Schneider Electric South East Asia (HQ) PTE Ltd vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation) 2022(443 ITR 186). The appellant had ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....A(9) of the Act. In this regard, he relied upon the decision of the Chennai Bench in the case of Enrica Enterprises Pvt Ltd Vs DCIT [2024] 163 taxmann.com 105 (Chennai - Trib.). 14. The learned Sr. AR, Dr. Sachin Kumar appeared for the Revenue, supporting the order of the Ld. CIT (A) submitted that, it is a clear case of under reporting of income as a consequence of misreporting of income which is evident from the assessment order passed by the A.O, where the A.O has assessed the additional income disclosed by the assessee in the return of income filed under section 153A of the Act and initiated penalty proceedings under section 270A of the Act for misreporting of income. Further, the assessee had admitted additional income towards sale of spent solvent and scraps on the basis of evidence found during the course of search which clearly shows misreporting of income or not recording the receipts in the books of account which clearly falls under section 270A(9) of the Act. Further, the assessee had offered additional income towards unsubstantiated purchase of raw material and other expenditure in cash and the same is falls under section 270A(9) of the Act. Since the assessee has un....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....evied by the A.O. Therefore, he submitted that the order of the Ld. CIT (A) should be upheld. 16. We have heard both the parties, perused the materials on record and had gone through the orders of the authorities below. We have also carefully considered the relevant show cause notice under section 274 r.w.s 270A of the I.T. Act, 1961 dated 27/03/2023 and 12/06/2025 in light of provisions of section 270A of the I.T. Act, 1961. The A.O levied penalty under section 270A(9) of the Act, for under reporting of income in consequence of misreporting of income thereof on additional income admitted by the assessee in the return of income filed under section 153A of the Act towards receipts from sale of spent solvent and scraps, unsubstantiated inflation of purchase of raw material and unsubstantiated expenses incurred in cash and booked under the head "travelling and conveyance, foreign travel expenses and other expenses. Out of the additions considered by the A.O for the purpose of levy of penalty under section 270A of the Act, the first addition was unaccounted receipts from sale of spent solvent and scraps for Rs.2,70,81,379/-. The assessee company had admitted unaccounted income of Rs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sued by the A.O without specifying a particular charge under which penalty is initiated, vitiate the entire penalty proceedings and consequently, the order passed by the A.O under section 270A of the Act is bad in law and liable to be quashed. In light of above factual back ground, if we examine the order passed by the AO, imposing penalty u/s.270A(9) of the Act, it is necessary to refer to provisions of Sec.270A of the Act, and the reasons given by the AO to impose penalty u/s.270A(9) of the Act. The provisions of Sec.270A of the Act, deals with penalty for 'under reporting of income and under reporting as a consequence of misreporting of income'. Sub-section (1) to (6) of Sec.270A of the Act deals with 'under reporting of income and under reporting as a consequence of misreporting of income', has been specified in sub-section (7) to Sec.270A of the Act. Subsection (8) & (9) deals with 'under reporting of income and under reporting as a consequence of misreporting of income' thereof by any person and such case of 'misreporting of income' referred to in sub-sec.(8) has been specified in Sec.(9) of Sec.270A of the Act. From the above, it is manifestly clear that a provision of Sec.2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....given by the in the order in light of show cause notice u/s 274 r.w.s 270A of the Act. Admittedly, the AO issued notice u/s.274 r.w.s.270A of the Act. Sec.274 of the Act deals with the procedure for levy of penalty, wherein, it directs that no order imposing penalty shall be made unless the assessee has been heard or has been given a reasonable opportunity of hearing. Thus, it is evident that the penalty u/s.270A of the Act, cannot be imposed unless the assessee has given a reasonable opportunity and the assessee is being heard. Once, the AO is bound to act to hear the assessee and give reasonable opportunity to explain its case, then, there is no mandatory requirement of imposing penalty, because the opportunity of hearing is not a mere formality, and it is in order to the principle of natural justice. Therefore, in our considered view, the penalty u/s.270A of the Act, is not mandatory and it is based on the facts and explanation placed before the AO. 19. Having said so, let us come back to notice issued u/s.274 r.w.s.270A of the Act. We have gone through relevant show cause notice issued by the AO, wherein, the AO has stated that 'under reporting of income and under reporting ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....her it is for 'under reporting of income and under reporting as a consequence of misreporting of income' thereof which is clearly evident from the assessment order passed by the AO, where, the AO simply referred to initiation of penalty proceedings u/s.270A of the Act for misreporting of income. Then, said lapse is even continued while issuing show cause notice u/s.274 r.w.s.270A of the Act, where the AO specified 'under reporting of income and under reporting as a consequence of misreporting of income', without specifying for which charge the assessee is directed to pay penalty u/s.270A of the Act. There is no whisper as to which limb of Sec.270A of the Act, is attracted and how the ingredients of clause (a) to (f) of sub-sec.(9) of Sec.270A of the Act specified. In absence of such particulars, the mere reference to the word 'misreporting of income' in the assessment order or in the show cause notice makes the impugned order manifestly arbitrarily. 20. In the present case, the A.O initiated penalty proceedings under section 270A of the Act for misreporting of income, which is evident from the assessment order passed by the A.O. The misreporting of income referred to in sub-sect....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....natha Cotton & Ginning Factory (2013) 35 taxmann.com 250 (Kar.). Therefore, we are of the considered view that, show cause notice issued by the AO u/s.274 r.w.s.270A of the Act, without specifying the charge under which penalty is proposed u/s.270A of the Act, is a clear case of non-application of mind at the time of issuing show cause notice and thus, in absence of specific charge against the assessee, the assessee is not in a position to counter the show cause notice issued by the AO as well as cogent reply to the show cause notice and thus, entire proceedings becomes invalid and ab-initio. 21. The ld. Counsel for the assessee relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Prem Brothers Infrastructure LLP (supra), where the Hon'ble Delhi High Court by following the earlier decision in the case of Schneider Electric South East Asia (HQ) Pte Ltd. v. ACIT, International Taxation in WP (C) No.5111 of 2022 dated 28.03.2022, held that in view of vague notice without any whisper as to which limb of section 270A of the Act is attracted and how ingredients of sub-section (9) is satisfied, initiation of penalty u/s.270A of the Act for 'misreporting of income' is not....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent order framed by Respondent No.1 is in respect of disallowance under section 14A of the Act. The Petitioner has made a disallowance of Rs.3,20,14,010/- which was recomputed by the Assessing Officer at Rs.6,82,45,759/-. Thus, this is a case where the amount of underreporting of income is consequent to increase in the disallowance voluntarily estimated by the assessee. This court is conscious of the fact that there can be cases where underreporting of income may result in misreporting of income, however, in peculiar facts of the present case, the underreporting allegedly done by the assessee cannot amount to misreporting as the assessee had furnished all the details of the transactions relating to disallowance made under Section 14A of the Act and the AO as well as assessee has used the same details to arrive at different conclusions i.e. differing quantum of disallowances under Section 14A of the Act. This by no stretch of imagination can be held to be 'misreporting'. 8. This Court also finds that there is not even a whisper as to which limb of Section 270A of the Act is attracted and how the ingredient of sub-section (9) of Section 270A is satisfied. In the absence of s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of income and under reporting as a consequence of misreporting of income' would not have come to light. Therefore, the AO opined that it is a clear case of 'under reporting of income and under reporting as a consequence of misreporting of income' which attracts provisions of Sec.270A(9) of the Act, and thus, levied penalty for both the assessment years for 'under reporting of income and under reporting as a consequence of misreporting of income'. 13. The facts with regard to seizure of huge unaccounted cash during the course of search on __ was not disputed. It is also an admitted fact that the assessee company has offered additional income of Rs.16.39 Crs. & Rs.23.62 Crs. towards disallowance of estimated marketing expenses @ 1/3rd of total expenses incurred under the head 'marketing expenses' for both the assessment years. The cash seized during the course of search was telescoped against additional income offered by the assessee towards estimated disallowance of marketing expenses. The assessee has filed return in response to notice u/s.153A of the Act, for both the assessment years and offered additional income admitted during the course of search in respect of disall....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....xisted in the statue by way of sec.271(1)(c) of the Act, for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Provisions of Sec.271(1)(c) of the Act, was also having two limbs or two charges i.e. i) for concealment of particular of income and ii) furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. If you go by provisions of Sec. 271(1)(c) of the Act & Sec.270A of the Act, and wordings therein both provisions are similar and para materia to each other. Although, the term 'tax evasion' has been redefined by way of 'under reporting of income and under reporting as a consequence of misreporting of income' but it is synonymous concealment of particular of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, it is necessary to examine whether penalty proceedings u/s.270A of the Act, is mandatory in nature and further, such penalty can be invoked without providing an opportunity to the assessee as required u/s.274 of the Act. 15. The order imposing penalty u/s.270A of the Act, is an appealable order u/s.246A of the Act before the First Appellate Authority. If the penalty u/s.270A of the Act, had been mandatory, there have not bee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....violation of principles of natural justice, because, issuing a vague notice without specifying the charge under which limb the proposed penalty proceedings is initiated, would vitiate the entire proceedings, because, the assessee was not given an opportunity to explain its case on specific charge. Therefore, in our considered view, penalty levied on the basis of invalid or vague notice is invalid void ab initio. The concept of 'under reporting of income' and 'misreporting of income' are two different charges with very clear boundaries. As we have already discussed in earlier part of this order, sub-section 2 to 6 of sec Sec.270A of the Act, deals with concept of 'under reporting of income', then, separate rate of penalty is provided. Sub-sec.9 deals with a concept of 'misreporting of income' and for those a separate rate of penalty is provided. Therefore, 'under reporting of income' and 'misreporting of income' shall not be used interchangeably nor are they synonymous, but each operates under strict definition and do not overlap each other. Since, 'under reporting of income' and 'misreporting of income' are two concepts and separate charges, the AO before initiating penalty proceed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....be sustained. The relevant findings of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court are as under: 6. This court in the case of Schneider Electric South East Asia (HQ) PTE Ltd. Vs. ACIT, International Taxation Circle 3(1)(2), New Delhi and Ors. W.P.(C) No. 5111/2022 vide judgment dated 28.03.2022 observed as under:- "6. Having perused the impugned order dated 9th March, 2022, this Court is of the view that the Respondents' action of denying the benefit of immunity on the ground that the penalty was initiated under Section 270A of the Act for misreporting of income is not only erroneous but also arbitrary and bereft of any W.P.(C) 7092/2022 Page 4 of 6 reason as in the penalty notice the Respondents have failed to specify the limb - "underreporting" or "misreporting" of income, under which the penalty proceedings had been initiated. 7. This Court also finds that there is not even a whisper as to which limb of Section 270A of the Act is attracted and how the ingredient of sub-section (9) of Section 270A is satisfied. In the absence of such particulars, the mere reference to the word "misreporting" by the Respondents in the assessment order to deny immunity from imposition o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y from imposition of penalty and prosecution makes the impugned order manifestly arbitrary. W.P.(C) 9. Consequently, the impugned penalty order dated 28th March 2022 passed by Respondent No.1 under Section 270A of the Act is quashed and Respondent No.1 is directed to grant immunity under Section 270AA of the Act to the Petitioner. 17. At this stage, it is relevant to consider the decision of jurisdictional the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Babuji reported in 430 237 where, the Hon'ble jurisdictional Madras High Court in the case of Babuji Jacob v. ITO reported in [2021] 430 ITR 259 (Madras) has dealt with the issue of show cause notice u/s.274 r.w.s.271(1)(c) of the Act, after considering its earlier decision in the case of Sundaram Finance Ltd. v. ACIT reported in [2018] 93 taxmann.com 250, held that issuing a printed form of notice without striking inapplicable portion in the notice and not charging the assessee for particular evasion vitiates the entire penalty proceedings, including the order passed by the AO imposing penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. A similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT v. Manjunatha ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....3 and 12/06/2025 is issued without any specific charge as to which clause, whether it is clause (a) or clause (c) or clause (e) of sub section (9) of section 270A of the Act is applicable. Further, in the assessment order also, the A.O simply stated that the penalty proceedings under section 270A is initiated for misreporting of income without any satisfaction as to for which default the assessee is liable to pay penalty under section 270A of the Act. Since the notice issued by the A.O is vague in nature, without satisfying specific charge under which the proposed penalty proceedings are initiated, in our considered view the order passed by the A.O under section 270A of the Act on the basis of vague show cause notice vitiate the entire penalty proceedings. Therefore, in our considered view, penalty levied by the A.O under section 270A(9) of the Act cannot be upheld on this ground itself. 24. Having said so, let us come back whether penalty levied under section 270A of the Act is sustainable in law. Admittedly, the A.O initiated penalty proceedings under section 270A(9) of the Act, for under reporting of income is in consequence of misreporting thereof. The A.O had considered fiv....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ervation with regard to expenditure claimed by the assessee and its correctness. Therefore, it is necessary to examine the argument of the learned Counsel for the assessee in light of sub-section (6) of section 270A which deals with a case, where the under reported income for the purpose of this section shall not include the amount of income in respect of which the assessee offers an explanation and the A.O is satisfied that the explanation is bonafide and the assessee has disclosed all the material facts to substantiate the explanation offered. 25. Sub-section (6) of section 270A deals with the cases of income determined on the basis of estimation. In the present case, admittedly, the addition considered by the A.O for the purpose of levy of penalty under section 270A of the Act in respect of unaccounted receipts from sale of spent solvent and scraps is determined on the basis of estimation only. Further, the addition considered by the AO towards unsubstantiated expenditure incurred in cash and accounted in the books are also on the basis of books of account maintained by the assessee. The A.O neither made out a case of incorrectness in the books of account nor find fault with ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s. Neeraj Jindal (Supra). The Hon'ble Delhi High Court had considered an identical issue of levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act in light of difference between the assessed income and income returned as per return of income filed under section 153A of the Act, and after considering relevant facts had held as under: "21. Thus, it is clear that when the A.O. has accepted the revised return filed by the assessee under Section 153A, no occasion arises to refer to the previous return filed under Section 139 of the Act. For all purposes, including for the purpose of levying penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the return that has to be looked at is the one filed under Section 153A. In fact, the second proviso to Section 153A(1) provides that "assessment or reassessment, if any, relating to any assessment year falling within the period of six assessment years referred to in this sub-section pending on the date of initiation of the search under Section 132 or making of requisition under Section 132A, as the case may be, shall abate." What is clear from this is that Section 153A is in the nature of a second chance given to the assessee, which incidentally gives....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o have granted them immunity available under Section 271(1)(C ) of the Income Tax Act." 28. The sum and substance of ratios laid down by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT vs. Neeraj Jindal (Supra) and The Hon'ble Gujrat High Court in the case of Kirit Dahyabhai Patel vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Supra) is that, once there is no difference between the assessed income and returned income as per the return of income filed under section 153A of the Act, then for the purpose of levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, what is to be seen whether any concealment in the return filed by the assessee under section 153A of the Act and not vis-à-vis the original return filed under section 139 of the Act. The Hon'ble Courts further held that once the A.O accepted the revised return filed by the assessee under section 153A of the Act, no occasion arises to refer to the previous return filed under section 139 of the Act. For all the purpose including for the purpose of levy of penalty, the return that has to be looked at is one filed under section 153A (1) of the Act, and any return filed in response to notice under section 153A of the A....